Guild Wars 2

How do you all feel about classes getting new Utility skills classified as Weapon Skills that have a Weapon Requirement to use?

Like for example, a Warrior could have a Hammer Utility that requires Hammer to be equipped. etc.

Or how about a Weapon Utility skill system that functions with Melee/Ranged requirements? Like a Weapon Utility that requires a Melee weapon rather than a specific weapon type. Or a Ranged weapon requirement. Etc.

Whats your thoughts on this idea?

Horrible, either there’d be far too many utilities, or there would be no versatility in each weapon set.

Those utilities would become useless the moment you swap your weapon, therefore useless in fight while another weapon is equipped.
Nice idea, but too many holes.
How about a weapon utility skill that uses whatever weapon you have as the skill described. Ex. Stomp with staff.

Romo.3709:

Those utilities would become useless the moment you swap your weapon, therefore useless in fight while another weapon is equipped.
Nice idea, but too many holes.
How about a weapon utility skill that uses whatever weapon you have as the skill described. Ex. Stomp with staff.

That would be a trade off. It could be more chain skills like the auto attack. But with different effects. or could be a short cooldown skill for weapons, to make it useful in ways, and have its liabilities as well.

Knighthonor.4061:

Romo.3709:

Those utilities would become useless the moment you swap your weapon, therefore useless in fight while another weapon is equipped.
Nice idea, but too many holes.
How about a weapon utility skill that uses whatever weapon you have as the skill described. Ex. Stomp with staff.

That would be a trade off. It could be more chain skills like the auto attack. But with different effects. or could be a short cooldown skill for weapons, to make it useful in ways, and have its liabilities as well.

I can see a lot of advantages in this, but they’d have to be very careful with it. Especially when it comes down to knockback skills with hammer for example. Making them more powerful or cooldown faster would require a lot of balancing therefore nerfing a lot of weapon skills as they are right now.

Romo.3709:

Knighthonor.4061:

Romo.3709:

Those utilities would become useless the moment you swap your weapon, therefore useless in fight while another weapon is equipped.
Nice idea, but too many holes.
How about a weapon utility skill that uses whatever weapon you have as the skill described. Ex. Stomp with staff.

That would be a trade off. It could be more chain skills like the auto attack. But with different effects. or could be a short cooldown skill for weapons, to make it useful in ways, and have its liabilities as well.

I can see a lot of advantages in this, but they’d have to be very careful with it. Especially when it comes down to knockback skills with hammer for example. Making them more powerful or cooldown faster would require a lot of balancing therefore nerfing a lot of weapon skills as they are right now.

Wont need nerf, since its a Utility after all. And if it has a weapon requirement, it means you have a trade off, of losing that utility when swapping weapons (for Ele this could be Attunement requirement rather than weapon) So they have to factor in those cooldown or build for playing a single weapon, and lose out on 5 skills from off weapon. Thats a huge trade off, but leaves more designs to builds and play styles.

For example, using Hammer Warrior.

1-5 Hammer Skills
6 Heal
7-9 Hammer Utilities
10 Elite

off weapon Something Else

Well with this build, I would pretty much be stuck in Melee unless my off weapon is Ranged. But if I switch to that I would be limited to
1-5 Weapon Skills
6 Heal
10 Elite

while the swap cooldown returns. Huge trade off with advantages for building a play style that you may like more.

You may like Melee combat with Hammers. So you sacrifice the off weapon pretty much, for more hammer usage.

Would simply prefer more #1-#5 skills for weapons.

At least 2 choices of auto attack per weapon and 2 choices for every other skill, with the ability to swap the order of skills on the bar.

Rather than being locked out and applying to a single weapon skill, what about weapon skills with the same basic attack applied depending on what range and hand of weapon currently wielded?

For example:

• Unyielding Cleave – Warrior Utility – Use the full weight and force of your weapon in a wide strike. This may be traited to be unblockable.
  Main Hand Melee – Strike with your main hand weapon in a circle
  Two Hand Melee – Strike with your weapon weapon in a circle
  Ranged – Fire in a line damaging the first target it hits and targets around it.

Same basic attack across the three abilities, nothing preventing weapon swap. However either the cooldown or the stat scaling would have to vary depending on which weapon you use it with in order to balance out between weapons. A second problem, this could become really complicated with the Ele attunement system and the Engineer kits skills.

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

I agree.

Give 1-5 alternatives and let us swap them independently. Why can’t I bleed with a greatsword on mesmer? I like the greatsword animations a lot more than staff. Give us viable alternatives.

Also nerfing is not ever the way. Buffing is. If some class is too strong, buff the others. If warrior has a ton of raw damage, give it to the other classes too, because raw damage is the most useful in this game (Yes I wrote a post about the low level of healing, tanking and other support).

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Thats not what I am suggesting to address.

My idea is to add more to making builds around weapons. Not for additional weapon skills for weapon slot.
That wouldnt address what I am trying to do.

Weapon Utility skills, allow for players to make builds around a certain weapon and play style at the sacrifice of dual weapon.

In GW1, a Warrior for example, could make builds for hammer only, or Sword only, ect.
Or the Warrior could simply make a Melee build with general melee attacks. But I notice skills like those have weapon requirements. Hammer skills required Hammer, same with Swords, and Melee attacks were general, but required a melee weapon.

I would like something like that for Utility.

For example, on my Guardian, I may like playing with my Hammer, but my Utility skills may not match what I am looking for in a Hammer melee fighter build, so I swap in some Hammer Guardian utility skills (these are not the same as the weapon skills. They are Utility skills with Hammer requirement to use). And now I have 8 total Hammer skills like old GW1, but with 1 Heal and 1 Elite skill to go with it. Also I can have my off weapon, for 5 more skills, but lose out on my Utility slots in which I put Hammer skills in.

Something like this would more or less remove the ability to switch weapons in combat, seeing as you would suddenly sit with a couple of completely useless skills.

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

Knighthonor.4061:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Thats not what I am suggesting to address.

My idea is to add more to making builds around weapons. Not for additional weapon skills for weapon slot.
That wouldnt address what I am trying to do.

Weapon Utility skills, allow for players to make builds around a certain weapon and play style at the sacrifice of dual weapon.

In GW1, a Warrior for example, could make builds for hammer only, or Sword only, ect.
Or the Warrior could simply make a Melee build with general melee attacks. But I notice skills like those have weapon requirements. Hammer skills required Hammer, same with Swords, and Melee attacks were general, but required a melee weapon.

I would like something like that for Utility.

For example, on my Guardian, I may like playing with my Hammer, but my Utility skills may not match what I am looking for in a Hammer melee fighter build, so I swap in some Hammer Guardian utility skills (these are not the same as the weapon skills. They are Utility skills with Hammer requirement to use). And now I have 8 total Hammer skills like old GW1, but with 1 Heal and 1 Elite skill to go with it. Also I can have my off weapon, for 5 more skills, but lose out on my Utility slots in which I put Hammer skills in.

You opened up a discussion thread and then slammed my idea because it’s not what you want, rather than discuss.
I am discussing.
I would hate to spec in to hammer utilities, swap mid fight to my staff and then have my hammer utilites sit idle while I used staff skills.

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

This post is so full of misinformation and biasing that I care not disect it and continue a pointless conversation.
Especially considering my idea is not based off GW1 or even suggesting to go back to the GW1 skill style. (Although it would be a kitten ton better than the dribble we have now).

Bagel.4598:

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

This post is so full of misinformation and biasing that I care not disect it and continue a pointless conversation.
Especially considering my idea is not based off GW1 or even suggesting to go back to the GW1 skill style. (Although it would be a kitten ton better than the dribble we have now).

Biasing? Even bias wouldn’t be applicable in this situation but biasing, what exactly am I biasing against? Make your own point, don’t rely on buzz words, but if you must, use one that is applicable and use it correctly.

You’re suggestion is that we be able to switch every skill on our bar correct? That was one of the major problems with GW1 and many other games similar to it. You cannot have a build system which allows for 100% build variance and an expanding skill pool, it doesn’t work, it hasn’t ever worked, it never will work. MTG proved this a decade before GW1 was even a twinkle in the design teams eye. You have to limit either the build system or not expand the skill pool. In an MMO, where progression is very important to a lot of the playerbase, never expanding the skill pool was likely never an option, hence the limits on building.

Curunen.8729:

Would simply prefer more #1-#5 skills for weapons.

At least 2 choices of auto attack per weapon and 2 choices for every other skill, with the ability to swap the order of skills on the bar.

What this person said as well as a more dynamic trait system.

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

This post is so full of misinformation and biasing that I care not disect it and continue a pointless conversation.
Especially considering my idea is not based off GW1 or even suggesting to go back to the GW1 skill style. (Although it would be a kitten ton better than the dribble we have now).

Biasing? Even bias wouldn’t be applicable in this situation but biasing, what exactly am I biasing against? Make your own point, don’t rely on buzz words, but if you must, use one that is applicable and use it correctly.

You’re suggestion is that we be able to switch every skill on our bar correct? That was one of the major problems with GW1 and many other games similar to it. You cannot have a build system which allows for 100% build variance and an expanding skill pool, it doesn’t work, it hasn’t ever worked, it never will work. MTG proved this a decade before GW1 was even a twinkle in the design teams eye. You have to limit either the build system or not expand the skill pool. In an MMO, where progression is very important to a lot of the playerbase, never expanding the skill pool was likely never an option, hence the limits on building.

And this is why you are not a game developer.

Bagel.4598:

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

This post is so full of misinformation and biasing that I care not disect it and continue a pointless conversation.
Especially considering my idea is not based off GW1 or even suggesting to go back to the GW1 skill style. (Although it would be a kitten ton better than the dribble we have now).

Biasing? Even bias wouldn’t be applicable in this situation but biasing, what exactly am I biasing against? Make your own point, don’t rely on buzz words, but if you must, use one that is applicable and use it correctly.

You’re suggestion is that we be able to switch every skill on our bar correct? That was one of the major problems with GW1 and many other games similar to it. You cannot have a build system which allows for 100% build variance and an expanding skill pool, it doesn’t work, it hasn’t ever worked, it never will work. MTG proved this a decade before GW1 was even a twinkle in the design teams eye. You have to limit either the build system or not expand the skill pool. In an MMO, where progression is very important to a lot of the playerbase, never expanding the skill pool was likely never an option, hence the limits on building.

And this is why you are not a game developer.

Actually just about to start my third year of design school, one of the top 30 students in my class of 700 and am looking at an internship at the subsidiary of Disney Interactive that developed Disney Infinity.

So, if I may ask, what exactly makes you a game developer?

The fully customized builds of GW1 wasn’t the reason GW1 was a niche title, but it DID have its problems. It WAS a balancing nightmare, let’s be honest; and that IS the primary reason why skills in GW2 were cut tremendously.

I think player just need to accept that the skill library of GW2 is going to expand MUCH slower than it did in the first iteration, and that is for an honestly good reason.

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Or why not implement for e.g 5 more skills for each weapon per class so we can actually construct more builds by swapping out weapon skills aswell rather than just the weapon.

Because that would be the first step to lead the entire game down the same self-destructive road that made GW1 a D-list title for its entire run?

Any second now somebody is going to come in screaming SIX MILLION PLAYERS, and to that I say, it took them eight years to get that playerbase, GW2 gained more than half that in nine months. And GW1 was released when there was a lot less competition in the MMO market than there is now. It’s about time people admit it was a niche title that didn’t appeal to most people, and justifiably so. Such a build system as it had is rife with problems unaddressable except by limiting the build system.

This post is so full of misinformation and biasing that I care not disect it and continue a pointless conversation.
Especially considering my idea is not based off GW1 or even suggesting to go back to the GW1 skill style. (Although it would be a kitten ton better than the dribble we have now).

Biasing? Even bias wouldn’t be applicable in this situation but biasing, what exactly am I biasing against? Make your own point, don’t rely on buzz words, but if you must, use one that is applicable and use it correctly.

You’re suggestion is that we be able to switch every skill on our bar correct? That was one of the major problems with GW1 and many other games similar to it. You cannot have a build system which allows for 100% build variance and an expanding skill pool, it doesn’t work, it hasn’t ever worked, it never will work. MTG proved this a decade before GW1 was even a twinkle in the design teams eye. You have to limit either the build system or not expand the skill pool. In an MMO, where progression is very important to a lot of the playerbase, never expanding the skill pool was likely never an option, hence the limits on building.

Sorry, I’m not a very technical thinker, so I don’t quite follow. How does adding interchangeable skills on weapons cause issues?

Raeysa Penrose.8450:

Sorry, I’m not a very technical thinker, so I don’t quite follow. How does adding interchangeable skills on weapons cause issues?

Well, the easiest answer I can give you is that the more permutations you offer, the more likely someone will come across a gamebreaking combination that absolutely ruins any competitive or content balance.

If you think the class balance in GW2 was bad, GW1 was a million times worse. People developed builds that pretty much allowed you to solo content meant for 8 players, or hero builds that let you walk all over Hard Mode content while asleep. There were so many skills that every time one ridiculously gamebreaking build was corrected, it simply opened up three more.

You may not think there’s a problem with that; well, apparently the people who are developing this game DO, and their skill mechanics reflect that they felt it was a rather BIG problem.

chemiclord.3978:

Raeysa Penrose.8450:

Sorry, I’m not a very technical thinker, so I don’t quite follow. How does adding interchangeable skills on weapons cause issues?

Well, the easiest answer I can give you is that the more permutations you offer, the more likely someone will come across a gamebreaking combination that absolutely ruins any competitive or content balance.

If you think the class balance in GW2 was bad, GW1 was a million times worse. People developed builds that pretty much allowed you to solo content meant for 8 players, or hero builds that let you walk all over Hard Mode content while asleep. There were so many skills that every time one ridiculously gamebreaking build was corrected, it simply opened up three more.

You may not think there’s a problem with that; well, apparently the people who are developing this game DO, and their skill mechanics reflect that they felt it was a rather BIG problem.

Ohhh so it’s a balancing thing. Makes sense! Thank you! I have been wondering for the past year why we can only learn the 5 weapon skills at the beginning of the game and never any more. It’s a little sad to hear that interchangeable skills would be so difficult to implement sanely, but it makes sense to be careful with that.

So. . . new weapons, right?

Raeysa Penrose.8450:

Ohhh so it’s a balancing thing. Makes sense! Thank you! I have been wondering for the past year why we can only learn the 5 weapon skills at the beginning of the game and never any more. It’s a little sad to hear that interchangeable skills would be so difficult to implement sanely, but it makes sense to be careful with that.

So. . . new weapons, right?

I suspect if we were to see more weapon skills, that they will be tied to new weapons, simply to avoid the “mix-n-match” skill bars that would allow permutations to skyrocket.

But I don’t see one weapon having more than 5 skills any time soon, if ever.

So the Battlefield games are MMOs then?
What about CS and CoD?
And LoL, DotA, HoN?

Because all those games support large numbers of players simultaneously and are played on the internet.

lordkrall.7241:

So the Battlefield games are MMOs then?
What about CS and CoD?
And LoL, DotA, HoN?

Because all those games support large numbers of players simultaneously and are played on the internet.

Sure, by that definition yes.
But they’re not MMORPG’s

Bagel.4598:

…

You asked what qualified me, I told you, don’t ask what you don’t wish to know or have already decided to dismiss. And even so, the qualifications of a student are far greater than that of a cynical non-contributor.

If I am wrong about my interpretation of GW1s system as compared to GW2s, and the developers reasons for discontinuing that system, then prove it and your qualifications in one stroke. Provide an argument with evidence as I provided mine. If, that is, you are capable of providing anything more than hollow quips.

And GW1 was a CORPG, not an MMORPG. An MMOPRG takes place in a massive world of multiple people playing with each other. GW1 allowed you to create and participate in any PvE content in an instance with a population cap of a few dozen, and even solo it if you liked; no massive world, multiplayer optional. It was not an MMO.

Finally, nearly everything you’ve said disqualifies you from ever having had any training in any field of design, because so far as design goes it doesn’t matter whether it is a CORPG or an MMORPG. The same principles of design have been applied since pen and paper RPGs and board games were the staple of the industry. The principles of design do not change with the tools.

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

…

You asked what qualified me, I told you, don’t ask what you don’t wish to know or have already decided to dismiss. And even so, the qualifications of a student are far greater than that of a cynical non-contributor.

If I am wrong about my interpretation of GW1s system as compared to GW2s, and the developers reasons for discontinuing that system, then prove it and your qualifications in one stroke. Provide an argument with evidence as I provided mine. If, that is, you are capable of providing anything more than hollow quips.

And GW1 was a CORPG, not an MMORPG. An MMOPRG takes place in a massive world of multiple people playing with each other. GW1 allowed you to create and participate in any PvE content in an instance with a population cap of a few dozen, and even solo it if you liked; no massive world, multiplayer optional. It was not an MMO.

Finally, nearly everything you’ve said disqualifies you from ever having had any training in any field of design, because so far as design goes it doesn’t matter whether it is a CORPG or an MMORPG. The same principles of design have been applied since pen and paper RPGs and board games were the staple of the industry. The principles of design do not change with the tools.

Actually I didn’t ask what qualified you.
So maybe as a developer your first task should be correctly interpret things (That’s a high school taught skill).
Secondly if you’ll read the above information, I have provided you with enough information including definitions to prove that GW1 was an MMO and why it was marketed as a CORPG.
It doesn’t take a qualification to see it’s just silly to argue that.

Bagel.4598:

Actually I didn’t ask what qualified you.

Bagel.4598:

And this is why you are not a game developer.

That is some impressive selective memory.

Bagel.4598:

So maybe as a developer your first task should be correctly interpret things (That’s a high school taught skill).

I did, your response to my interpretation was, as quoted above, a jeer about how I’m not a game designer, which I admittedly am not, but I am at least, for example, actually able to state and defend my stance (and reasons behind that stance) on how the game should be designed instead of attacking credentials I don’t know whether you do or do not have.

Bagel.4598:

Secondly if you’ll read the above information, I have provided you with enough information including definitions to prove that GW1 was an MMO and why it was marketed as a CORPG.
It doesn’t take a qualification to see it’s just silly to argue that.

Not what I was talking about, you still have yet to address my very first point, being my statement that a fully open variable build system cannot work with a continually expanding content pool, and that this design mistake is the reason GW1 was never a very popular title.

What was incorrect about what I stated, and why? You clearly stated you believe I am incorrect, strongly in fact, but with neither evidence nor argument provided. If you believe I am wrong, I want to know why other than your assumption that I have no design experience, which honestly wouldn’t matter were it true, any casual observer can have an opinion, profundity is not copyrighted by an industries indoctrinate, but opinion is only constructive when the giver can state why and how he or she came to have it.

Conncept.7638:

Bagel.4598:

Actually I didn’t ask what qualified you.

Bagel.4598:

And this is why you are not a game developer.

That is some impressive selective memory.

Bagel.4598:

So maybe as a developer your first task should be correctly interpret things (That’s a high school taught skill).

I did, your response to my interpretation was, as quoted above, a jeer about how I’m not a game designer, which I admittedly am not, but I am at least, for example, actually able to state and defend my stance (and reasons behind that stance) on how the game should be designed instead of attacking credentials I don’t know whether you do or do not have.

Bagel.4598:

Secondly if you’ll read the above information, I have provided you with enough information including definitions to prove that GW1 was an MMO and why it was marketed as a CORPG.
It doesn’t take a qualification to see it’s just silly to argue that.

Not what I was talking about, you still have yet to address my very first point, being my statement that a fully open variable build system cannot work with a continually expanding content pool, and that this design mistake is the reason GW1 was never a very popular title.

What was incorrect about what I stated, and why? You clearly stated you believe I am incorrect, strongly in fact, but with neither evidence nor argument provided. If you believe I am wrong, I want to know why other than your assumption that I have no design experience, which honestly wouldn’t matter were it true, any casual observer can have an opinion, profundity is not copyrighted by an industries indoctrinate, but opinion is only constructive when the giver can state why and how he or she came to have it.

Do you not see how every reply you’ve given so far has only strengthened my point about misinformation, and a biased opinion?

I didn’t ask for your credentials yet you felt the need to defend yourself with no concrete achievements other than “study”.
After pointing out that you had incorrectly interpreted what I had actually said, you continued to defend yourself, claiming that it was YOUR interpretation rather than the literal message of “This is why you are not a game developer”.
Which upon your reply you only agreed with me.

My contribution of adding more skills was argued you by you that the addition of skills would have a negative impact on GW2, just like it had on GW1, when in actual fact GW1 had a very complex and one of the best rounded skill systems for it’s size in history.
You then proceeded to make claims that GW1 wasn’t a very popular title, although previously you stated that it had sold over 6 million copies.
Now compared to GW2 that may be small, but 6 million copies sure isn’t unpopular.
You stating that a game with continually expanding content could not be successful with a large variable skill pool, was completely disproved by the existence of 2 campaign maps, both with 2 new professions and skills for all classes, and an expansion with additional skills.
Remember the 6million copies sold?
The bias comes in where your opinion that GW1 wasn’t a very good game due to the skill system is exactly that.
From the forum feed back I would say that the favour heavly leans towards GW1’s skills system than GW2’s. Although the reality may be different, we will never know.
My suggestion regarding skills is what I would like to see, and your retaliation was that it would be detrimental to the game, based on your biased opinion of GW1’s successful addition of many skills and content.

You have succeeded in 2 things in this conversation:
1) Proving me right that conversing with you is pointless.
2) Getting me to converse.

To get back to the thread topic …

I think there are enough skills tied to weapons as is. Also, with traits that favor a certain weapon, and traits that favor certain types of utilities, I question whether further tying build elements is desirable. I see no advantage to doing so.

Bagel.4598:

Do you not see how every reply you’ve given so far has only strengthened my point about misinformation, and a biased opinion?

I didn’t ask for your credentials yet you felt the need to defend yourself with no concrete achievements other than “study”.
After pointing out that you had incorrectly interpreted what I had actually said, you continued to defend yourself, claiming that it was YOUR interpretation rather than the literal message of “This is why you are not a game developer”.
Which upon your reply you only agreed with me.

My contribution of adding more skills was argued you by you that the addition of skills would have a negative impact on GW2, just like it had on GW1, when in actual fact GW1 had a very complex and one of the best rounded skill systems for it’s size in history.
You then proceeded to make claims that GW1 wasn’t a very popular title, although previously you stated that it had sold over 6 million copies.
Now compared to GW2 that may be small, but 6 million copies sure isn’t unpopular.
You stating that a game with continually expanding content could not be successful with a large variable skill pool, was completely disproved by the existence of 2 campaign maps, both with 2 new professions and skills for all classes, and an expansion with additional skills.
Remember the 6million copies sold?
The bias comes in where your opinion that GW1 wasn’t a very good game due to the skill system is exactly that.
From the forum feed back I would say that the favour heavly leans towards GW1’s skills system than GW2’s. Although the reality may be different, we will never know.
My suggestion regarding skills is what I would like to see, and your retaliation was that it would be detrimental to the game, based on your biased opinion of GW1’s successful addition of many skills and content.

You have succeeded in 2 things in this conversation:
1) Proving me right that conversing with you is pointless.
2) Getting me to converse.

Firstly, what you described is hypocrisy, contradicting oneself, not bias. Look it up. They don’t address even remotely related issues.

You did ask for my credentials by stating that I didn’t have any, if someone calls you a highschool dropout when in fact you are still in school, in a situation where your student status was of import, would you not correct them? Exactly.

And yes, as I stated I am not a game developer, I also stated that it shouldn’t matter, but if it does, and think about this for a second, that makes your opinion worth even less, as I at least have exposure to game design on a professional level, whilst you don’t even have that… or anything else for that matter. Even if I’m only a one on the scale, that makes you a zero. You’ve basically just stated your own opinion is worthless.

So… the ‘facts’ you provide, which are of course facts because they are proceeded by “when in actual fact” are that you and others you know liked GW1, you’ve seen that the majority of the forum agrees with you, and GW1 was complex and rounded for its size. Are you serious? You do know what fact means right? Can I have your address? At this point forget game design, your life would be most greatly be improved by a dictionary and I would love to send you one.

GW1 only gained six million players in eight years, that is a verifiable fact, it is also true that such a playerbase is far less than many other MMOs have gained in the same amount of time. Therefore, in my opinion, it was not a very popular title, I would even put it on the D-list of MMOs, and I never stated that this opinion was fact, I merely pleaded with players to accept that and stop trying to force the developers to repeat what, in my opinion, are past design mistakes.

And no, my opinion wasn’t disproved by GW1s expansions. In fact it is nothing if not supported by them, not to mention hosts of other games across every platform. However in spite of that, what I stated isn’t fact, it is merely something accepted by most modern game designers. This includes GW1s own head of PvP who now works at Riot Games, and stated himself that the continual expansion of PvP content made an impossible venture of GW1 PvP balance. That is why I wanted to know what you had to disprove it, as it would be a pretty big deal if you did have any valid evidence, however you’ve not only failed to give any you’ve failed to even give (or show you know what is) an cognizant argument or a basic understanding of the word the word ‘fact’.